![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
joysilence posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
darkling_talesWell I finished Jonathan Aycliffe's The Lost in about half the expected time, as I found it ridiculously readable. This is partly due, I think, to the way the novel is made up entirely of letters, tape recorder transcripts and telegrams - just like a certain Bram Stoker vampire classic I could mention... This format seems to have almost entirely died out since the heyday of Stoker and Wilkie Collins, which is such a shame, and I was very glad to see the technique resurrected so well. Talking of resurrection,I'd better get back to the actual story.
I don't want to give too much away, but the reader follows Michael, an idealistic young teacher, on his quest to reclaim his ancestral seat in Romania and turn it into an orphanage. But he gradually begins to discover that his lineage is steeped in horror. The action unfurls against the vivid and chilling backdrop of a country reeling in the wake of Ceaucescu's regime, with it's decaying cities run by corrupt bureaucrats and full of bitter,thwarted youth, it's creaking aged railways and of course the dark deep eternal forests of Transsylvania where a few stunted humans do battle with the winter and the "wolves". I remember hearing that some people believed Ceaucescu was a vampire back in the bad old days.
There is nothing as obvious as a caped bloodsucking vampire in this book; the torments the author has conjured up for Michael's damned family are more agonizing than that (which takes some doing in my opinion!) Suspense is built up craftily,first via Michael's regular progress reports to his mundane, loving family in England and their replies (his mother is a great character who reminds me of every fussing, conservative, middle-aged parent I've ever met.) When the letters peter out, the plot is carried by other devices; every few pages the narrator changes until the reader is left deliciously unsure of what is "really" going on.
Eventually, of course, the reader ends up scrapping all idea of "reality" in an almost perfect suspension of dreamlike disbelief. I felt very alone while reading this novel, and really found myself rooting for the good guys (though everyone up in the Castle is pretty twisted and goodness is a relative concept.) And how many people can say that about the good guys in Dracula?
If I have a criticism to make, it is that Aycliffe brings cruelty to children into the novel, for no apparent reason other than to trowel on an extra layer of moral horror. I think it's OK to write about the suffering of children if they are presented as characters in their own right, but that does not really happen in this novel and I was left suspecting the author of going for the cheap shot, aiming to terrify people who think kiddiwinks should be left out of horror but still feel a certain frisson when they are not. By and large though,the novel was much less exploitative than most modern horror and I heartily recommend it. It explores many fascinating and "deep" themes while remaining fucking scary at all times, and never descends into cliche. I hope Anne Rice is watching!
I don't want to give too much away, but the reader follows Michael, an idealistic young teacher, on his quest to reclaim his ancestral seat in Romania and turn it into an orphanage. But he gradually begins to discover that his lineage is steeped in horror. The action unfurls against the vivid and chilling backdrop of a country reeling in the wake of Ceaucescu's regime, with it's decaying cities run by corrupt bureaucrats and full of bitter,thwarted youth, it's creaking aged railways and of course the dark deep eternal forests of Transsylvania where a few stunted humans do battle with the winter and the "wolves". I remember hearing that some people believed Ceaucescu was a vampire back in the bad old days.
There is nothing as obvious as a caped bloodsucking vampire in this book; the torments the author has conjured up for Michael's damned family are more agonizing than that (which takes some doing in my opinion!) Suspense is built up craftily,first via Michael's regular progress reports to his mundane, loving family in England and their replies (his mother is a great character who reminds me of every fussing, conservative, middle-aged parent I've ever met.) When the letters peter out, the plot is carried by other devices; every few pages the narrator changes until the reader is left deliciously unsure of what is "really" going on.
Eventually, of course, the reader ends up scrapping all idea of "reality" in an almost perfect suspension of dreamlike disbelief. I felt very alone while reading this novel, and really found myself rooting for the good guys (though everyone up in the Castle is pretty twisted and goodness is a relative concept.) And how many people can say that about the good guys in Dracula?
If I have a criticism to make, it is that Aycliffe brings cruelty to children into the novel, for no apparent reason other than to trowel on an extra layer of moral horror. I think it's OK to write about the suffering of children if they are presented as characters in their own right, but that does not really happen in this novel and I was left suspecting the author of going for the cheap shot, aiming to terrify people who think kiddiwinks should be left out of horror but still feel a certain frisson when they are not. By and large though,the novel was much less exploitative than most modern horror and I heartily recommend it. It explores many fascinating and "deep" themes while remaining fucking scary at all times, and never descends into cliche. I hope Anne Rice is watching!
